Given my current research in linguistic metaphors lately, one thing still troubles me : are the metaphors of word roots, e.g. etymologies, inherently structured into our common language? That is, the etymologies of word, which are often very different from how we actually use the words themselves, do they dictate a metaphorical understanding of reality. Let me give a few examples :
The word renovation comes from the Latin renovatio, which means "rebirth" and is where we get the word Renaissance. Here I would suggest that the etymology of the word corresponds to the manner in which we use the word in common speech. If a family decides to renovate their house, we usually mean "fix up the house", which usually entails new carpet, cabinets, getting rid of that ugly 1970s wallpaper and giving the outside a fresh coat of paint. But common speech is incredibly subjective and typically dependent on experience and cultural background. So once the house is reborn it does present itself with new life, as if it had a renovatio.
The word invent comes from the Latin invenire, which means "to find". Here I would suggest that the two are similar, but to our common speech the word and its root seem to have distinctly different properties. To say "I invented that machine" and "I found that machine" seem inherently distinct. To invent something seems to us to be created ex nobo, while to find something is to discover something that already existed. But they are very similar and they correspond in everyday speech. For example, when a new institution is created it is often stated to have been founded in such and such a year. This founding corresponds to the notion of invenire as it already existed and just had to be found.
The word garden comes from the Latin gardinus meaning "enclosure". Once again, I would suggest the two are some what similar, but our conception of the two in common speech are distinctly different. We typically think of a garden as a place of vegetation, often where food is grown. A synonymous word to garden is paradise, which, because of cultural reasons (i.e. Christianity : Garden of Eden) we consider the two be similar. Consequently paradise comes from Arabic pairidaeza, which is a compound of pairi- "around" + diz "form, wall". We would consider the two to be distinctly different in the case of paradise, as paradise is usually thought of being a place of wonder, relaxation, and pleasure (Eden being Hebrew for "pleasure"). Though the word and the root seem to be two different things, we naturally impose boarders on things that do not have boarders. When we do make a garden we establish some kind of boarder to it, such as a line of bricks, or raise the soil behind retaining walls, or simply change the ground cover (i.e. mulch or straw). I would suggest the word and its root to be similar, but they are more dissimilar than they are similar.
Other words tend to be vastly different from their etymology. The word genius, which is Latin and means "spirit" and is synonymous with the Greek daemon. But it does not mean spirit in the sense of a soul or ghost, but rather that we each have a genius. This is profoundly different from our concept of genius, in which we usually say "You are a genius", rather than "You have a genius". The genius was thought of as a sort of personal god, a deity that attended one person and one person only, and was that person's link to higher deities. This was the case in Mesopotamia, as genius comes from the Arabic genii (as in the genie in the lamp). The genie was thought of as each person's individual deity, sort of like a guardian angel, and were often represented as small figurines. The genius was typically thought of as a sort of muse, which further confuses the matter. The word museum is a compound : muse + um, or "place of the muses", as museums were filled with the art and beauty inspired by the muses. No one was ever thought to to invent anything on their own, but rather a muse or genius or daemon or genie gave them the idea. So no one could be blamed for anything, as they were commanded by the gods of what to do, thus were not responsible for their actions. This is probably due to the bicameral mind, and they could not conceive of ideas ex nobo on their own. I suggest that our conception of genius is vastly different from what the term originally implied.
For more on this idea of genius watch Elizabeth Gilbert's (yes, she wrote Eat Pray Love) lecture at TED Talks : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86x-u-tz0MA ... though the problem with her idea is that we cannot return to the idea of having a genius, as the bicameral mind has disintegrated in our point in history.
The final word I wish to end this with is understand, which seems like a basic word as it is a composite of two English words : under + stand. When seen like that, what is that suppose to mean. Our conception of understanding implies that the information given to us has been received and interpreted correctly and that the information was "grasped" (metaphor). Understand seems to be one of those words that is a bit difficult to define, as mentioned before. The process of understanding should be described and understood first : person A speaks and person B hears. Let's say Person A commands person B to do something, in which case person B obeys. The process of listening is similar to obedience, as one has to block out everything else that is going on and hear attentively. The term obedience comes from the Latin obedire, which is a compound of ob + audire, which means "to hear while facing [someone]". So hearing involves a hierarchical relationship in which one hears and obeys, while the other commands (refer to Julian James's Origin of Conscious in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind for further implications of this process). Obviously, whoever is hearing the command would have to understand the person higher to them in order obey. This would probably be the root of the word understand. Let's say a king, while sitting on his throne, tells his servant to run an errand. The servant would hear and obey, thus standing under the king. If the interpretation of the word is correct, then its origin is probably due to the fact that kings and gods sat on thrones and everyone else stood below them. I suggest that our conception of this word is vastly different from its roots.
So do we understand the etymologies of words in our everyday speech? For the most part, I would say yes, as most words we use are similar to their origins, as is the case of renovation, or garden, or invent. But there are several words which are vastly different from their origins, such as genius, or portal, or understand, or paradise, or am.
Hammurabi being given the Code from Marduk:
Do you understand?
I under + stand.
No comments:
Post a Comment